Tag Archives: Inman

The US’s selfish war on inflation will tip the world into recession | Phillip Inman

Later in July US interest rates are expected to jump for a second time this year, and that’s going to wreck any chance of a global recovery.

The Federal Reserve could push its base rate up by as much as a full percentage point, ending 15 years of ultra-cheap money, intended to promote growth.

This jump, to a range of 2.5%-2.75%, would take the cost of borrowing money in the US to more than double the Bank of England’s 1.25%. And yet the Fed could just be taking a breather as it contemplates even higher rates.

This column, though, is not about the US. It is concerned with the terrible impact on Britain and countries across the world of America’s selfish disregard when it decides to tackle high inflation with higher borrowing costs. Britain is already feeling the effects of the Fed’s pledge to tackle inflation until it is “defeated”, come what may.

Higher interest rates in the US make it a more attractive place for investors to store their money. To take full advantage, investors must sell their own currency and buy dollars, sending the price of dollars rocketing higher.

In July the US dollar increased in value against a basket of six major currencies to a 20-year high. The euro has slipped below parity with the dollar in the last few days. The pound, which has plunged by more than 10% this year to below $1.20, is losing value with every week that passes.

In Japan, the central bank has come under huge pressure to act after the yen tumbled to its lowest level against the dollar since 1998.

There are two important knock-on effects for those of us that live and work outside the US.

The first is that goods and raw material priced in dollars are much more expensive. And most commodities are priced in dollars, including oil.

Borrowing in dollars also becomes more expensive. And while getting a loan from a US bank is beyond the average British household, companies do it all the time, and especially those in emerging economies, where funds in their backyard can be in short supply.

The Bank of England interest-rate setter Catherine Mann recently said that her main motivation for wanting significant increases in the UK’s lending rates was her fear that the widening gap with the dollar was pushing up import prices. And higher import prices meant higher inflation.

If only she could persuade her colleagues on the Bank’s monetary policy committee that the devaluation of the pound was a serious issue, maybe they would push up the Bank’s base rate in line with the Fed rate increases. After the Fed makes its move, more may join her.

Until January this year, Britain’s inflation surge was on course to be short-lived. Now it seems the Russian invasion of Ukraine and a splurge of untargeted handouts by the Biden administration during the pandemic, which have served to push up prices in America, will keep inflation in the UK high into next year.

Those governments that have borrowed in dollars face a double whammy. Not only will they need to raise domestic interest rates to limit the impact of import price rises, they will also face a massive jump in interest payments on their dollar borrowings.

Emerging markets and many developing-world countries will be broke when these extra costs are combined with a loss of tourism from the Covid pandemic. Sri Lanka has already gone bust and many more could follow.

For the past three decades, western banks have marketed low-cost loans across the developing world as a route to financial freedom.

Zambia’s government borrowed heavily before the pandemic to become self-sufficient in electricity. It is a laudable aim, but has left the central African state with a ratio of debt to national income (GDP) much the same as France’s – about 110%.

The problem for Zambia is not the same as for France, which pays an interest rate of 1.8% to finance its debts, measured by the yield on its 10-year bonds. The Zambian 10-year bond commands a rate of 27%. Now Zambia, like France and so many other countries, must borrow simply to live. To invest is to borrow more.

There is no sign that the US will change course. Joe Biden is in a panic about the midterm elections, when fears of spiralling inflation could favour the Republicans. This panic has spilled over to the Fed, which has adopted hysterical language to persuade consumers and businesses that higher rates are coming down the track and to curb their spending accordingly.

The Fed knows inflation is a problem born of insufficient supply that only governments can tackle. But that doesn’t look like stopping it from pushing the US economy, and everyone else’s, into recession.

Read original article here

It’s hard to ‘level up’ when No 10 is always bearing down on everyone | Phillip Inman

Michael Gove, in his new role as the cabinet’s major-domo and minister in charge of “levelling up”, is about to expend large amounts of intellectual and political capital attempting to close the gap between the south-east and everywhere else.

Levelling up, as we are told repeatedly by No 10, will be the defining achievement of the Johnson administration and 2022 is the year that efforts to transform the much-neglected regions begin to gather pace. With this in mind, Gove is about to publish a white paper that outlines how the government plans to tackle this gargantuan task.

So far the prospects for a major commitment across Whitehall are looking slim. The chancellor, for one, wants to make sure that whatever Gove wants comes with no new cash attached. Recycling is popular in government, especially when it concerns money.

Gove’s response appears to be a renewed focus on the bureaucracy supporting the regions. He has floated a scheme to fill the geographical gaps between the metro mayors who run most of England’s big city regions with a new concept of US-style regional governors.

There is no suggestion of mimicking the neo-colonial mini-White Houses that host governors in most US state capitals – just a network of elected chiefs able to reduce regional inequalities and drive growth around the country.

Gove’s mistake here is his apparent determination to join the list of reformers who focus more on structures than desired outcomes.

One advantage he can claim as he prepares to confront the many entrenched and powerful interests in the shires (which dominate the Conservative party apparatus and will object to governors) is the lack of agreement among political opponents on an alternative to whatever structure he puts forward.

Labour and the thinktanks that feed ideas to shadow ministers agree on one thing – that extra funds and power should be devolved away from Whitehall. But they have not found an alternative system of local democracy to coalesce around since John Prescott’s proposal for regional assemblies was crushed in a referendum held in north-east England more than 25 years ago.

And there is good reason. As Prescott found out, extra layers of government appear to the public as civil-service employment schemes. Even sharp-shooting governors can quickly look like jobsworths to those who see themselves as taxpayers first and citizens second.

Labour is rightly more concerned with issues that Gove wants to sidestep, such as how to foster more productive regional economic engines based on a collaboration of public and private capital.

The access to private capital in England’s north-east, north-west and south-west, where a lack of finance cripples businesses’ ambitions, is so much more important than having a go-getting governor.

And what about health outcomes and education, which have improved by leaps and bounds in London and the south-east over the last 20 years, while standards have stagnated or gone backwards in other parts of the country?

From George Osborne’s elected mayors to Gove’s planned overhaul, debates about the efficient and functional management of English territory have always taken precedence over questions such as how to determine and represent local political identities in a way that increases levels of participation, accountability and legitimacy. These issues underpin economic success because they give individuals and communities a sense of respect and control.

Gove wants the eventual model for the whole country to be London, which, he says, under Labour and Conservative mayors has set out strategic goals, giving coherence to the revitalisation and regeneration of large parts of the capital.

The latest of those mayors, Sadiq Khan, says these statements ring hollow. He told the Observer: “The government is saying to all other parts of the country they will have a London-style transport system. But London doesn’t have a London-style transport system and that is because these days the government is micro-managing what we can and can’t do.

“Whether you are Andy Burnham or Andy Street, Jamie Driscoll in the north-east or Dan Jarvis in Sheffield, it is clear more powers should be devolved. But the control freakery of the government, with ministers hoarding power rather than giving it away, is overwhelming.”

Economic studies show that only a greater degree of autonomy can generate higher and more sustainable growth rates, and that such progress is only seen over long periods of time. So why should anyone put their faith in governors when the template for them, the London mayor, is cut off at the knees, denied not only the cash needed to do anything meaningful, but with Whitehall breathing down his neck?

If Gove cannot enhance local democracy and accept all that it entails, then governors and much else he proposes will be window dressing for an administration that is levelling down.

Read original article here